Most of the time.. so would I !!!!!!


To extrapolate this in another direction.. I,m a firm believer that the constant use of the " noggin " assists in every day situations ( yes, i do have the odd senior moment, but as my friends tell me , thats because I AM odd ! )

"That Chart column has nothing to say about the direction of movement."

The step is defined as a sideways one, which in fact it is as that is the direction of movement relative to the applicable reference, but that does not mean that it is a sideways action in the body. Don't read it as the step "will be sideways", read it as the step "will have been sideways"

"The correct understanding of the actions of an Outside Turn and Inside Turn are set out quite clearly (In 'General Notes', in Howard, for example), and as they are of general application, it would be pointless cluttering the individual charts with such basic stuff."

That's what I meant by not explicitly - to find the explicit actions, you have to translate backwards through rules given elsewhere - which is to say that the actions are only given implicitly. The alternative would not be to "clutter the charts" but to write the charts in terms of the body actions to be taken, rather than what results from those actions. This would not be more cluttered, but it would be very different philosophy of presentation - more of a "how to" guide than the current books were intended to be.

Is it? Where?

"Is it? Where?"

In the chart, rather obviously: "LF to side"

The issue is that a sideways step in the chart does not mean that a sideways action is to be executed.

No, the issue is that you refuse to acknowledge that the Chart description is of the FOOT POSITION, RELATIVE TO THE OTHER FOOT, AT THE END OF THE STEP. It doesn't say, anywhere, that a sideways step is taken, because, of course, it isn't.

"No, the issue is that you refuse to acknowledge that the Chart description is of the FOOT POSITION, RELATIVE TO THE OTHER FOOT, AT THE END OF THE STEP. It doesn't say, anywhere, that a sideways step is taken, because, of course, it isn't."

The chart clearly defines the step as "To the Side" because it is organized in terms of the foot position.

The fundamental issue is that you refuse to accept the words on the page for what they are - a definition of the step as a sideways one, NOT AN INSTRUCTION TO TAKE A SIDEWAYS ACTION.

Your mistake is that you are trying to draw a non-existent distinction between what is given in the book vs. the definition of the step, which is impossible because what is given in the book IS the definition of the step, by definition.

What you should be doing is drawing a distinction between the documented result of the step, and the actions that should be executed to bring that about.

(And by the way, you are wrong about the end of the step, because by definition the end of the step occurs either when the feet are together while passing, or in this case when the right foot has drawn halfway closed. What you should have said was at the "extent" of the step or at the conclusion of arrival, not at its "end").

I've got nothing to add, except that you are obviously an idiot.

If you are not going to use book language accurately, then it's indeed better that you not try to use it.

Telemark. If you get your full weight over your first stepping foot then you will swivell, otherwise you will have a strange position of that foot. No good for a competition. If you arrive over that foot after you have turned and compressed you should be able to lift the moving foot from the floor without having to adjust the weight

I'm confused by what you say. If I don't take my body weight over step 1, I will never be able to take step 2, and I'm not expecting to have arrived on 1 having just turned anywhere. If we are talking about the natural swivel that will occur on 2, then see below, but if so, I'm certainly not going to then lift the foot to close it on 3, but to draw it to the standing foot, with slight pressure into the floor, to retain balance and control, prior to the weight change that occurs on 3.

The main part of the turn on an outside turn occurs between 1 & 2.

The turn is accomplished by swivelling on both feet, but with the weight over the forward foot. Both the first step and the second step are taken forward, and the swivel is taken on 2, so that both feet end parallel, directly across the line of movement (in the case of a Natural Turn), DW. The swivel to the R takes place at the same time as weight is taken over the moving foot (rather like a Latin Forward Walk Turning), and the Man will take care to style the turn so that it has the appearance of being continuous from its commencement on 1 to its completion on 3, greatly helped by the correct use of CBM on 1 and continued body turn. The foot position given in the chart (LF to side) is perfectly consistent with this movement, and the whole turn is completed on the LF, as the RF closes to LF on 3, with the ending alignment of backing LOD.

Of course, the Inside Turn action is distinctly different, in that there is no foot swivel on any step, the whole turn being made between 1 & 2, placing the moving foot in a pointing alignment, and completing the body turn to match the feet on 3.

In both the Outside & Inside movements, an ugly foot position on 1, prior to the main turn, is taken care of through the small foot movement consistent with the correct use of CBM by both dancers, and of the commencement of the turn. No further adjustment is required.